h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Richard Milhous Nixon - 37th President of the United States - A2322929
Author: Jodan - We'll miss you, Bels... - U201497

I've been working on this since February, but I've finally worked in a link to my Ohio entry, so I reckon it's ready for you people to rip it to shreds

By the way, I won't do an entry on Gerald Ford There's no deliberate pattern here... I just wrote an entry on Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in that order.

Have fun.

Why not do Gerald Ford. I'd like to see you trying to link these two - A980589 and A172342

I'm not going to do an entry to link to another entry.

Otherwise I'd do one on Mike Piazza and link to A837038

(Baseball joke there)

Ah, so you didn't get the Gerald Ford joke then

Superb article, clearly disentangling the tangled web of deceit that RN wove. Just a thought: why not dedicate it to the memory of Bels? I think I'll do that with my next entry.

Did you get the baseball joke?

Hi FM Thanks.

Actually, I am doing that with my next(ish) entry - A2611559 The Statue of Liberty. Bels wrote a piece with information my original entry on the subject, A985287 left out. It was one of the last entries he contributed to h2g2.

So once I heard about Bels this week, I grafted them together and plan to pop it into the Update Forum with a credit for Bels later this week... I'm just waiting for a little information and some time to sand down the rough edges.

Where was the original news about Bels? Not that I'm being a ghoul, but my dad is dying of the same condition right now. I'd like to pay my respects to those how have already passed on, mainly as a matter of form.

66?thread=669585" >F19585?thread=277219&latest=1

Good entry Jodan - One typo (UK/USA) the round things fitted on cars are tyres.

Very competent entry, Jodan.

It's probably worth saying in the election of 1960, that those who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon and image became more important.

Oops, changed what I was saying and left out 'had won' - people listening to the radio thought that Nixon had won the debate.

That's not a typo - just your way of saying it!

ZSF - I'll add that, as well as some other things I remember from my research of JFK.

Hi Jodan!

I enjoyed this marvelously balanced entry. A very thorough, credible, and enjoyable piece; and historically important to any country that has a constitution that covers the actions of its heads of government.

I have two suggestions; a very minor one, and one more important (at least to me).

Minor suggestion (first paragraph):
'... he will never be a ‘great president’.'
I would suggest:
... he will never be considered one of the 'great' presidents.

The more important suggestion is an outcome of the order in which the scandals and their investigations changed (perverted) the U.S. Constitution.

By allowing Agnew to be ousted (resign) first, and appointing the untainted Ford, Nixon's resignation put an unelected official into the highest office in their land. The constitution calls for the VP to take over in case of losing a Pres.; but then it is supposed to go to Speaker of the House.

Since both elected officials (P & VP) both resigned in disgrace, it should never have been up to them to select their successor. That choice was mandated by the Constitution. Not only did this pervert the meaning of that important document, but it put in place someone who then had the authority to do the additionally scandalous job of pardoning the outgoing president.

It would be nice to add something to this extent, to further expound on the legacy that RMN left his constituents, and the precedent setting embarrassment that resulted. To some peoples' minds, this was a worse crime than the break-in itself.

I like both of those suggestions... and I shall endeavor to complete your requests immediately.

I can't include too much of your post because of too much opinion and some parts I disagree with you about, but there's a new bit in right above the last header.

Hi there, and I'm glad you appreciated the suggestions.

It is your piece and you have every right to take or ignore anything I offer, without offense.

I have to admit curiousity though, about the 'opinion' aspects. I certainly wouldn't expect you to use my wording, but the order of events is historical fact, and the 'machinations' were obvious and a great scandal during the Ford presidency.

If RMN had resigned at the same time as STA, or before, the public wouldn't have been left with such a horrible taste in their collective mouth and the (IMHO) 'proper' ascendency would have taken place.

True enough, the 25th amendment was the tool they used; but the way it was wielded created a dangerous precedent in any event. High crimes should not be so easily brushed aside by 'working the system'. That is not what America is about (again, IMHO).

Good piece, nonetheless. Congratulations.

The 25th Amendment provided the instructions for what they were to do, and they did it. It says-

"Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

Agnew resigned, so Nixon used the amendment, and filled it with Ford, who became Vice President upon his confirmation in Congress. Nixon resigned, so the procedure in section 2 was followed, and Ford became President.

One of the points of this amendment is so that the exchange of power is orderly, because an election cannot be held in the middle of a year... instead, Congress serves as the check/balance.

When the 25th Amendment was written, I'm sure that they considered this scenario - it didn't seem likely under the Lyndon Johnson administration, but sure enough it happened to the next President! I don't think that it's an ideal situation, but an ideal situation isn't possible when both the VP and Prez resign quickly.

The thing I disagree with you on is that Ford shouldn't have pardoned Nixon. I think it was the right thing to do, personally. It laid to rest the scandal, and let the nation move on. Nixon said in his resignation that the nation needs a full-time Congress and a full-time White House, which his resignation helped, but what he did not mention was it needed a full-time population, and Ford's pardoning of Nixon was used to help the public move on from the Watergate Scandal.

The public was left with a bad taste in its mouth, because they never realized this could happen. It's their duty to use their political power to stop laws (including amendments) they don't like. But they didn't, so I have no sympathy for them.

Just one guy's opinion.

Oh, don't get me wrong Jodan. I understand that everything was done quite legally. Many morally bankrupt persons can make the legal system work for them.

And it was all done in an orderly fashion. No matter that the ethics were entirely skewed, and that the result was morally reprehensible. If chaos were the only alternative, even I would admit that this was better.

But, make no mistake, this pardon did never lay the scandal to rest. It grew well beyond the date of the pardon, and the ultimate release of the White House tapes were a continuing embarrassment to the resigned administration, the Ford years that followed (you realise that he was not elected for the following term?), and the government in general.

'When the 25th Amendment was written, I'm sure that they considered this scenario ...'

I have to sincerely doubt that this was ever considered before the amendment was in place. The idea that both offices should suffer sufficient embarrassment to cause them individually to resign is something that American, considering its history, would never have anticipated. One or both, perhaps; but not each.

The pardon, whether the right or wrong thing to do, left a cloud over the entire lack of resolution, and a great sense of justice denied. Another case of those in power choosing which laws and ethics to obey or disobey, use or abuse.

Ford's pardoning of Nixon was the most obvious pre-arranged payback in the history of the country's government, pure and simple. There is no way that he could not forsee that this would be the impression of a large segment of the public, and that the stain would be all the more permanent for the lack of commitment to the constituency's moral outrage that forced the resignation.

Personally, I'd have rather seen him impeached, whether or not he resigned. It would have made more sense than trying to go through the process over the Clinton indiscretion.

I am rather surprised that your last point seems intent on shifting the blame to the voters. As if, in reading the language, you would have predicted this kind of subterfuge. It's not as if the public is in a position to draft the language, or control the process, except every few years when they are given their choice of crooks. It sounds like your blaming the victims here; which, I admit, distresses me.

(Frankly, I don't have any use for either major party, and I'm not crazy about any of the minor ones either.)

But I won't try to argue away your right to your opinion. I just felt it could be a little more historically sensitive to the futile public outcry of the time.

"I have to sincerely doubt that this was ever considered before the amendment was in place. The idea that both offices should suffer sufficient embarrassment to cause them individually to resign is something that American, considering its history, would never have anticipated. One or both, perhaps; but not each."

There is a line of succession from the President down through the entire Cabinet, running through parts of Congress. I'm quite sure that they considered what would happen if a VP and a President resigned at about the same time. They just didn't think it was likely, just like we don't think it's likely that the Secretary of Agriculture could ever become President.

Obviously, the public didn't like what happened, but when both the VP and President resign at the same time, what can you expect but a bad result? Ford wasn't a very good President, and the result wasn't very good and didn't satisfy people, but it's not exactly a time when you would expect a good result.

"I am rather surprised that your last point seems intent on shifting the blame to the voters. As if, in reading the language, you would have predicted this kind of subterfuge. It's not as if the public is in a position to draft the language, or control the process, except every few years when they are given their choice of crooks. It sounds like your blaming the victims here; which, I admit, distresses me."

That's where you're wrong.
The public is incredibly powerful in between election years. If public opinion so dictated it, I think politicians would do just about anything so that they could be elected the next year. So if the public were more interested in the 25th Amendment, and had considered what would happen if the VP and President both resigned, Ford might not have become President. (Not that any of this is the point really )

I don't blame the public for outcrying, but I certainly don't think it was morally wrong for the transfer of power to adhere to the 25th Amendment. What alternative was there?

I enjoyed your entry, Jodan As pointed out in the entry, I knew that Nixon resigned while facing an impeachment, but I never knew much about his actual administration. I was a bit young to remember much of his presidency, having been born in the middle of it

I spied a few technical points that may require your attention:
In the Vice President part - "...after the power began to become powerful for the first time since..."
What power? After the *party* began...? Sorry, that's the only sense I can make of it. Also, in same section, the 18K campaign fund looks odd with the dollar sign after the figure instead of the other way 'round. Did you mean to do it that way?

In the list of administration milestones, I think you may have missed a word here: "...though a treaty between the two nations ended relatively quickly." Did you mean the treaty ended quickly or the war?

Missing a word here too? In Covering Watergate: "Meanwhile, after the Senate Committee and Special realized..." Special Investigator? Prosecutor?

In the Later Years bit, did you mean that he really played *a lot* of golf? You mention it twice in succession. In the next paragraph you say he published a Library and Birthplace, should that be established?

And I hope you continue to write great entries on presidents (even though I know you must be tired of them by now), I enjoy reading your efforts much more than I ever enjoyed history class .